New York Times Vs. U.S. (1971) Essays - Daniel Ellsberg,

New York Times vs. U.S. (1971) This case came at a time when America was at unrest. A controversial war had divided the country. Opinions and arguments about whether the US involvement in Vietnam was warranted occupied the minds of American citizens. The people were hungry for information regarding the war. The Pentagon Papers, somehow leaked to the New York Times and Washington Post, fulfilled this need of the people for information. The government's assumption of prior restraint seemed to be a major blow to free speech and a sharp addition to the power of the government. The appellate courts' indecisiveness brought the ultimate decision to the Supreme Court. There was a deep division of opinion even among the Justices, and their decision landmarked what had been previously uncharted waters. The background to this landmark case has at its roots U.S. policies in Southeast Asia. These policies, which eventually led to the Vietnam War, were sharply criticized in a study authorized by Secretary of State Robert S. McNamara in 1967. This 47-volume study, officially named History of United States Decision-Making Process on Viet Nam Policy, have come to be known as the Pentagon Papers. These papers detailed the entire history of our involvement in Vietnam from World War II to the beginning of the Paris peace talks. Daniel Ellsberg, an employee of a California think tank, was given access to this study. This think tank held Defense Department contracts to analyze American strategy in Vietnam. Ellsberg had become convinced that our involvement in Vietnam was a mistake, and that American forces should be withdrawn immediately. Ellsberg and a man named Anthony Russo then photocopied the papers in a Los Angeles advertising office. Believing that these papers strongly supported his views, Ellsberg delivered a copy of the Pentagon Papers to Senator William Fulbright, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Still however, neither party made the papers public. Somehow copies of the documents were obtained by the New York Times, and in June 1971 they began publishing a series of articles based on the study. Nearly immediately a telegram was issued to the Times by the Attorney General John Mitchell ordering that it halt publication. The Times refused, and the government brought suit against them. Thus began a remarkably swift journey of justice ending at the Supreme Court. The first court decision, issued by NY federal district court Judge Gurfein, was in favor of the Times. However, the federal appellate court reversed this decision and ordered the newspaper to halt publication. Meanwhile, the Washington Post had obtained copies and had begun to print them, and the government brought suit against them as well. The US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia decided not halt publication. The case was picked up by the Supreme Court in late June, just 11 days after the first suit. This was the first attempt by the federal government to restrain the publication of a newspaper, but in 1931 the state government of Minnesota had made such an attempt. Near vs. Minnesota involved an anti-Semetic newspaper carrying on a smear campaign against local officials. Here the Supreme Court laid the precedent of prior restraint. The Court ruled that a prior restraint of publication would be allowed only in the most exceptional cases. That is, one that threatened "grave and immediate danger to the security of the United States." From the government's point of view, the Times case was such an exceptional case. The government's case rested on four arguments. The first was that many of the documents were stamped TOP-SECRET. The second argument was the fact that the papers were stolen, and the newspapers had no right to have them, much less publish them. Also, disclosure of the papers' contents, such as the United States' involvement in the assassination of South Vietnam President Diem, would embarrass the nation. Finally, release of the inside information on the United States' approach to peace talks would hinder them and prolong the war. The newspapers arguments were fewer and shorter, but much more powerful in the minds of Americans and, as it turned out, the Supreme Court. First and foremost was the First Amendment's guarantee of free press, that is